It's Time to Do Biology as if Darwin Never Existed | Dr. Randy Guliuzza, P.E., M.D.

[@staynalive660]

This is a brilliant lecture! Thank you!!!

[@twosheds1749]

yeh lets just make it up! Never mind the truth!! LOL

[@annep.1905]

@@twosheds1749 Your comment is illogical.

[@twosheds1749]

@@annep.1905 Why? It was a sarcastic comment. There is Zero scientific evidence for any of this! Science is the best tool humankind has devised for determining the truth from fiction!

[@annep.1905]

Actually, there is a great deal of scientific evidence for this. Science is only as good as those who practice it. If those who practice it determine from the beginning that there is no God, then science is anything that they want it to be, and they often get bad results from their work. If those who practice it believe in God, then science has to follow a set framework that operates within the laws that God has ordained, and those who practice it often get good results with it. @@twosheds1749

[@globalcoupledances]

@annep.1905 - evolution is the real creator. Creation Research can not disproof that

[@FrankPCarpi]

Thank you for the tools to use in our apologetics ministry Dr. G! This is very helpful.

[@jasminedavid2756]

Defining the elements of design is groundbreaking! I cannot express how important this is! 👏👏👏👏

[@ozowen]

Only if you ignore the elements of bad design.

[@lizd2943]

It's also complete nonsense. Half of them are subjective, some are the tendency of all natural systems, and some like complexity are not elements of design at all. We recognize design by artificiality, which is to say by contrast with nature.

[@martinjan2334]

Great lecture Dr. Guliuzza. I am an engineer too ... Biologists -- natural science graduates -- people who never made anything, should explain, how to GROW A BODY without engineering. How to sync the growing of trillions of cells without engineering. I would love to see that ...

[@globalcoupledances]

Embryology, no engineering needed

[@JesusistheonetrueGod]

@@globalcoupledances That's not what he's talking about. Whst you suggest is still taking a aperm and an egg to start the natural process that God has put in place. Make a human without using a sperm and an egg - that is what the engineer is saying.

[@globalcoupledances]

@JesusistheonetrueGod - Natural behavior of a cell is multiplying. Bacteria are an example. But multicellular organisms have a kind of gene (pseudo gene) that turns multiplying off. That explains why the different shapes. No engineering needed. Just a mutation and selection

[@JesusistheonetrueGod]

@@globalcoupledances What causes the selection and/or the mutation.

[@globalcoupledances]

@JesusistheonetrueGod - mutation happens. Selection is by nature. Read Darwin's book for explanation

[@goffjmorgan]

Thank you for this prospective. It all works so well…. I know God created this. Thank the Lord for opening my eyes to his glory!!! Amen

[@newcreationinchrist1423]

Once a Christian realizes that evolution is a lie it opens up your eyes to the reality of spiritual warfare and how essential it is to trust His word. 🙂✝️🙏

[@christophercoughlin9493]

For sure!

[@jounisuninen]

It's nice to hear that somebody else has come to the same conclusion as me. I've for years studied genetics, thermodynamics, information science, geology, paleontology, evolutionist and creationist theories etc. I'm fully convinced that we have more than enough scientific evidence for Bible's factuality. Only after learning so much of natural sciences I suddenly realized that today we don't see any war between science and God. Why? Because without God there wouldn't be science. Since God is covenant for critical rationalism, we can understand that the "war" is waged between science and atheism. But this is not all. After comprehensive studies of natural sciences in connection with analogous debates, it became possible for me to realize that this war is more spiritual than doctrinal. Atheism is an enemy of science because of the very essence of atheism. Atheism is a religion without personified god. It has even priests like Richard Dawkins. Dawkins' own words are revealing: “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” Here Dawkins inadvertently admits that atheism was never based on intellect or science. Atheists have been totally happy with their blind faith in godless world. Of course they are also happy if they feel like getting some ”scientific” support from Darwin's pseudoscience. Here we can see Dawkins’ atheistic worldview, but we can not see any scientific approach from him. Atheists have been atheists and they will always be atheists with or without a "scientific" smokescreen. In his posthumously-published Observations upon the Prophecies of Daniel, and the Apocalypse of St. John, Isaac Newton expressed his belief that Bible prophecy would not be understood "until the time of the end", and that even then "none of the wicked shall understand". This we creationists understand as we see that around us all the time.

[@adelinomorte7421]

***it is not a lie, only because you are biased to ignore it, you have to reed your bible as a SACRED BOOK more often knowing it is written in many mythologic formats as it was written by many different people and ages; you also have to reed many other SCIENTIFIC BOOKS to acquire knowledge in order to think by yourself and not be an intellectual scavenger. Be humble wen you read those books about religion and science, reduce yourself to your insignificance.***

[@adelinomorte7421]

@@jounisuninen ***just be careful with your labels, yes there are some atheists, but most of them are not, yes they are "atheists" of the concept of God that most of us, the so-called, believers are, as they are closer to God than most of us.*** ***GOD CREATES EVERYTHING***

[@annep.1905]

@@adelinomorte7421 Evolution is a lie. It always has been; it always will be.

[@masterbuilder3166]

They are without excuse, for the Greatness of God is seen in the things that are made

[@newcreationinchrist1423]

I LOVE when he says "let's go right to the bible." That's where it starts! 😊✝️🙏

[@Scorpion-my3dv]

Amen!

[@offthefront7537]

And ends

[@adelinomorte7421]

***nothing wrong with the BIBLE, it is a Wonderfull book like the sacred books of other religions like the "Gita" for Hinduism, the Bible shows us the evolution of the concept of GOD for us Judeo-christians.***

[@annep.1905]

@@adelinomorte7421 You're half right. Unfortunately you're also half wrong. There is nothing wrong with the Bible, but it is unlike all other religious texts ever written, in that it is inspired by God, and God does not change throughout, from the Old Testament all the way through to the end of the New.

[@adelinomorte7421]

@@annep.1905***it happen that, in those times they had different concept of God then we can have today, in the Old Testament is always written that God spoke to them not inspired, we must learn how to read books like this it is not a novel it is a series of books written in different styles of MYTHOLOGY , it is like to read a poem.***

[@refuse2bdcvd324]

Great points! God's word is sufficient for providing a foundation for biology.

[@roberta7187]

Thanks ICR

[@anonymike8280]

One thing is sure. Darwin had no concept of how new naturally occurring variations could arise. He knew, of course, that there were variations. He probably was thinking stochastically. That means, he was imagining that some variations might be more common than others, but that all were potentially possible. Even in Darwin's time, naturalists interested in the topic were aware of the gaps in the fossil record, gaps that have not yet been filled either actually or even conceptually.

[@jounisuninen]

Evolutionists try to present evolution as self-evident, but nothing can be self-evident as long as nobody can tell how it has started. There is no scientifically proved evolution, neither abiogenesis on which the beginning of evolution could be based. According to the law of entropy, abiogenesis can not happen. The other choice is creation. There is no known third choice. The abstract of "evolution" is like a building that is sketched on a paper. In that sketch the building has no footing. Evolutionists work on that sketch, study it and add all kinds of "evidence" and details to the evolution building to make it look good and credible. However there is no footing under that building on paper, and evolutionists don't know how they could draw it. The end result is that their building is only on paper and will stay on paper. This evolutionist "building on paper" can't actualize in real life, just like the theory of evolution can't actualize in real life.

[@adelinomorte7421]

***seems to me that you NEVER read "The Origin of Species".***

[@anonymike8280]

@@adelinomorte7421 Darwin had no knowledge of molecular biology. The knowledge did not exist during his lifetime.

[@vikingskuld]

@@anonymike8280 yet modern science refuted Darwin's theory of evolution. That is facr

[@anonymike8280]

@@vikingskuld The doctrine of descent with modification has yet to be refuted. The alternative to descent with modification is hypothesis of special or successive creation whatever the agency might be. I don't know of a third way to account for the data we have even in theory.

[@varsenika8651]

That last example of the fish was fascinating, really mind blowing

[@newcreationinchrist1423]

17:30 "have you ever, ever in your life seen a creative process that was not conscious?"

[@globalcoupledances]

Mutation is a creative process. I don't see consciousness there

[@varsenika8651]

​@@globalcoupledancesmutation is a destructive process always

[@globalcoupledances]

@varsenika8651 - without mutations you are still living in trees

[@clivewells1736]

😊😊I'm afraid this is a loaded question; all things - including thoughts and desires, dimensions and spaces are alive - 😊there is no 'dead space' just a flow and ebb of creative loving juices ready to reproduce whatever we concentrate upon - let us have good healthy thoughts and allow nature to follow her course, both quick and sure - the beauteous truth is there, all before us, whether or not we like or loathe. The choice is ours... x😊😊

[@globalcoupledances]

@varsenika8651 - Just read that only 25% of conceptions lead to birth. My calculation is that only 2.5% caused by mutation in coding gene. 22.5% in non-coding genes. That is why you are a human and not a chimp

[@newcreationinchrist1423]

19:34 evolution is a worldview

[@reydelmuerte]

Wrong

[@HS-zk5nn]

indeed

[@eswn1816]

Absolutely ! It's a story within an atheistic paradigm... not far from being a "fairy tale."

[@carolynjass2803]

Great presentation. Can you provide the resource (perhaps a link) for the cave fish regaining its pigmentation? Thank you.

[@chrisanderson5317]

There are NO vestigial organs or structures. For example, the coccyx is not a vestigial tail, but an anchor for muscles.

[@twosheds1749]

Cite your scientific source?

[@adelinomorte7421]

***get a life***

[@adelinomorte7421]

***"anchor for muscles" ? never heard !!! how about the other apes like chimps, gorillas, orangutangs it is also your anchor ? well you fail in zoology but I will give you 1 out of 5.***

[@johnmeredith6890]

@@twosheds1749 go look it up yourself. its not hard to find. and another point. some of the male reproductive components rely on it. Without it, no reproduction. Same as whale pelvic bones. take them away and no reproduction.

[@lizd2943]

@@johnmeredith6890 That doesn't mean they aren't vestigial. Vestigial does not mean useless. Only creationists define it that way.

[@newcreationinchrist1423]

33:30 isn't this the same as worshipping creation rather than the Creator? (Romans 1)

[@kathleennorton7913]

I have thought so.

[@globalcoupledances]

Evolution is the real creator. Biblical creator is mythology

[@richardtoosey4346]

Excellent analysis of the ultimate dependence of natural selection on chance alone - to create functional structures. Function is a key characteristic of design, which will never be found by genuinely random miscopying. Intelligence is the only answer.

[@dagwould]

Design is also indicated by the functional interaction of non-deterministic systems. Behe calls this 'irreducible complexity' but I think this underplays the 'complexity' involved. All living creatures, but it is obvious in vertebrates, activate on the basis of the interactions of numerous systems identified in our analysis: circulatory, respiratory, nervous, musculoskeletal, skin, digestive, etc. The orchestration of these systems to interact and produce essential functions to enable life in an external ecology is truly astonishing on a materialist conception..indeed, beyond belief on a materialist conception. This points for the prior specified complexity that the ID crowd talk about.

[@StudentDad-mc3pu]

"Function is a key characteristic of design, which will never be found by genuinely random miscopying." - this is just a statement with no evidence.

[@StudentDad-mc3pu]

@@dagwould Irreducible complexity is another unfalsifiable claim that has no evidence.

[@richardtoosey4346]

@StudentDad-mc3pu I assume you meant 'with no evidence' . Well for starters, why does the cell have mechanisms for proof reading and correction of copying errors in reproduction? (2015 Nobel Prize in Chemistry). Clearly nature itself shows that random copying errors are damaging, just as they are in our own publishing or computer code writing.

[@richardtoosey4346]

@@StudentDad-mc3pu But if it is unfalsifiable, then so is Darwin's theory! ; because he saw it as the test of his theory. "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down". As to evidence again, see Michael Behe's book 'A Mousetrap for Darwin' where he documents at length why no-one has actually answered the problems presented in 'Darwin's Black Box' (1996). The theory has in fact broken down under the weight of modern biochemistry of which he knew nothing.

[@christtheonlyhope4578]

Amen!

[@user-ur4kw6wj9o]

I always wondered why our loving God would leave poor animals to helplessly suffer in new environments waiting for natural selection. The more I learn of your CTE model I believe it returns glory and credit to our God as not only brilliant but loving.

[@ozowen]

What do you mean "helplessly suffer in new environments waiting for natural selection."? That is NOT what happens.

[@newcreationinchrist1423]

24:22 evolutionists presuppose that everything is made by a random, natural processes as opposed to being created by God

[@reydelmuerte]

Also wrong

[@stevendelucas6311]

Evolutionists don't presuppose anything. They just go where science takes them.

[@HS-zk5nn]

pretty much

[@truthbebold4009]

So you don't believe that mindless, purposeless forces brought forth butterflies, buttercups and bunny rabbits from an explosion? 😮

[@jounisuninen]

​@@stevendelucas6311 "Evolutionists don't presuppose anything. They just go where science takes them." Not true. On the contrary, evolutionists break the most important principle in making science - rejection of presuppositions and preconception. They hang on both. Atheists consider methodological naturalism as the preferred method of research. However, methodological naturalism is not scientific at all, if we stick to the principle that science must not reject any alternative theories in advance for ideological reasons. Holding preconception as the guiding principle of study makes atheistic research a pseudoscience. Atheist preconception is "No intelligent design". Any observation that seems to point towards intelligent design is automatically abandoned. That's pseudoscience, nothing more. That's also the reason why naturalistic science makes false deductions especially in biology. Creationist science uses critical rationalism as the preferred method of scientific studies. In critical rationalism no theory is rejected for ideological reasons. Whether a research points to natural or supernatural solution it is accepted based on evidence only. Critical realists recognize that our senses and other factors may get in the way between us as researchers and researched reality.

[@brandonmacey964]

Hey everyone, according to all the atheist conspiracy theorists, we are all over here LYING FOR JESUS 😂. what a bunch of malarkey. Just solid great info, good logic, good science, thanks for sharing

[@lizd2943]

If he isn't lying, he's intensely ignorant. This is nothing but a bundle of logical fallacies- argument from incredulity, argument from consequences, etc. Evolution has the evidence. Design does not. That's all there is to it.

[@jounisuninen]

@@lizd2943 "Evolution has the evidence." Hmm ... Like all fairy tales, the idea of evolution is simple to understand. That's why children and uneducated adults have been fooled by it so easily. It is easier to just believe in a slow "step by step by step" transformation in million years, than to start examining if it could be genetically possible. We know it isn't. There is no genetic mechanism to break the limiting factors within the embryo, to make changes in its body plan. Darwin knew nothing of genes and the limits of the genome to produce new life forms. During the last 100 years’ empirical tests even slightest change in the body plan of any given organism has been impossible to produce. There is no evidence for evolution i.e. for a species changing its body plan to make a path towards a new taxonomic genus or family. Not in fossils, not in laboratories where tens of thousands of generations have been used as test organisms. What we do see in nature is only intraspecies variation and subspecies. Evolutionists call that "micro evolution" but it has nothing to do with Darwin's idea of evolution. Subspecies are always poorer in their genome and that of course means devolution, not evolution. Mutations bringing new genetic information to mutated genes is just a hypothesis not scientifically proved: ”Because the biggest part of mutations - if they have any effect - are harmful, their overall effect must be harmful.” [Crow, J., The high spontaneous mutation rate: Is it a health risk? Proc Natl Acad Sci 94:8380-8386, 1997.] Of the same opinion are also Keightley and Lynch: ”Major part of mutations are harmful.” [Keightley, P. & Lynch, M., Toward a realistic model of mutations affecting fitness. Evolution 57:683-685, 2003.] Gerrish and Lenski estimate that the proportion of useful mutations vs. harmful mutations is 1:1000 000. [Gerrish P.J., & Lenski, R., The fate of competing beneficial mutations in an asexual population. Gentetica 102(103):127-144, 1998.] Ohta, Kimura, Elena and others have estimated, that the proportion of useful mutations is so low that it can’t be statistically measured! [Ohta, T., Molecular evolution and polymorphism. Natl Inst Genet Mishima Japan 76:148-167, 1977.] [Kimura, M., Model of effective neutral mutaitons in which selective constraint is incorporated. PNAS 76:3440-3444, 1979.] [Elena, S.F. et al, Distribution of fitness effects caused by random insertion mutations in E. Coli. Gentetica 102/103:349-358, 1998.] Evolution is a dead theory. It is based on atheism - nothing else. There is no science in it. It is taught in schools only because the evolutionist researchers want to keep their scholarships, want to keep their bursaries and don't want to lose their face.

[@annep.1905]

@@lizd2943 The presenter was completely logical in his arguments.

[@lizd2943]

@@annep.1905 Logical fallacies are by definition not logical.

[@annep.1905]

@@lizd2943 Bjt he did not engage in logical fallacies. You only say he did, but you have no proof of your claims. He actually engaged in mathematical probabilities, and showed that evolution is mathematically impossible.

[@danielwilliams7161]

In the example of the cave fish, does the eye completely disappear in dark environments, or is it just smaller or covered by a scale, rendering it blind? If it's gone, has anyone done research to see if future generations will have eyes again when raised under natural light? That seems like it would prove beyond a doubt that the "mutation" was just a pre-built toggle-able genetic feature and not a loss of the feature from the genetic information.

[@vikingskuld]

Epigenetics is the word you probably want to look into. Another lecture I watched talked about a fish that would change the shape of its body and skull within one generation depending of if it was feeding off the bottom or not. Another great point I been asking is for anyone that believes in evolution to show me a mechanism and just one example just 1, of a change in the dna that gives new never before seen information or gene in an organism? Just one they can't to my knowledge and so far not one person has. The few things they love to point out as bennificial mutations leading to evolutioninary change is always a loss of genes. The best they can give is the same genes are copied and expressed twice in an organism. Those things are like sickle cell anemia they typically always come with a loss or broken genes and cause as many or more problems then they fix.

[@adelinomorte7421]

***it is much more complex and takes much longer then you can guess***

[@adelinomorte7421]

***you also need to know a bit more about DNA structure in order to understand the mechanism of mutations.***

[@vikingskuld]

@@adelinomorte7421 it's actually been proven to take as little as one generation for the changes to take effect. It's genetic information that's already in the fish and nothing it's gained. It looses. So again it's a loss of information or a change of already existing info and has nothing to do with so called evolution. That the biggest scam out there.

[@vikingskuld]

@@adelinomorte7421 ok give me the mechanism for any organism to gain new never before had information not a loss or a copy of the same. Also please give one example if you can but I know you can't. So you don't have any mechanism to drive evolution to happen.

[@dagwould]

I like how in the first few minutes, the language of scripture indicates the direct, unmediated work of God. Creation is not delegated to a separate process, such as 'evolution', but the direct, unmediated work of God by his Word. Prepositionally available to us for examination and understanding. When it come to Godfrey-Smith, 'selection' is not the answer; 'selection' implies a selective mechanism with a teleological or at least some sort of axiological future oriented objective. What ecosystems do is 'deselect' or suppress organisms that are not adequately structured for that ecosystem. Ecosystems 'flush out' organisms that cannot survive. But this is all about Darwin's hypothesis. Where do we see this happening. If organisms aren't able to survive, at a population level they tend to move to where they can. We have every right to demand of Darwin evidence for his hypothetical causality.

[@StudentDad-mc3pu]

It isn't though - there is no evidence for your claim at all. All the evidence, the ancient age of the cosmos and earth, the fossil record and the DNA markers we share with some apes, all point to natural processes. There is no evidence for a single event that requires a supernatural explanation.

[@jounisuninen]

Prepositionally? I think you meant propositionally. But a good comment anyway 😎 "What ecosystems do is 'deselect' or suppress organisms that are not adequately structured for that ecosystem." This is true. All so-called evolutionary processes in isolated ecosystems are in fact devolution processes as each new subspecies has less genetic variety than its stem species has (ref. dealing the deck of cards). This fact makes impossible for subspecies to create a path that would lead to new taxonomic genus or to new taxonomic family. Impoverishing genomes do not make evolution. Evolution would need qualitatively new different genes, but natural selection has no pockets for such genes. It can not deal genes to the survivors so that they could evolve to a new species that could have a new and different body plan. The survivors must go on with their old genes. But how about mutations? Mutations bringing new genetic information to mutated genes is just a hypothesis not scientifically proved: ”Because the biggest part of mutations - if they have any effect - are harmful, their overall effect must be harmful.” [Crow, J., The high spontaneous mutation rate: Is it a health risk? Proc Natl Acad Sci 94:8380-8386, 1997.] Of the same opinion are also Keightley and Lynch: ”Major part of mutations are harmful.” [Keightley, P. & Lynch, M., Toward a realistic model of mutations affecting fitness. Evolution 57:683-685, 2003.] Gerrish and Lenski estimate that the proportion of useful mutations vs. harmful mutations is 1:1000 000. [Gerrish P.J., & Lenski, R., The fate of competing beneficial mutations in an asexual population. Gentetica 102(103):127-144, 1998.] Ohta, Kimura, Elena and others have estimated, that the proportion of useful mutations is so low that it can’t be statistically measured! [Ohta, T., Molecular evolution and polymorphism. Natl Inst Genet Mishima Japan 76:148-167, 1977.] [Kimura, M., Model of effective neutral mutaitons in which selective constraint is incorporated. PNAS 76:3440-3444, 1979.] [Elena, S.F. et al, Distribution of fitness effects caused by random insertion mutations in E. Coli. Gentetica 102/103:349-358, 1998.]

[@StudentDad-mc3pu]

@@jounisuninen Since Evolution has clearly and materially happened this spurious argument about 'devolution' and reduction in genetic material is mistaken as an argument that says Evolution has not happened. It clearly has, so something else must be going on.

[@adelinomorte7421]

*** you have no idea what is "THE WORD OF GOD" read attentively the gospel of John 1.***

[@StudentDad-mc3pu]

Actually where populations can't survive they go extinct. Some move on but are forced to adapt. What, for instance, caused the ancestors of Whales to take to the sea, shortage of food on land perhaps? We know whales once walked on land, that's for certain.

[@Constantin_Sime]

...Videos like this are one of the MANY reasons why I give more CREDIT to Creation SCIENTISTS than to naturalist scientists... (...and, YES, regardless of some critics' objection that "Creation scientist" would be an oxymoron, I DO REGARD them as SCIENTISTS!...)...

[@newcreationinchrist1423]

10:50 wow! Just wow!

[@jounisuninen]

I remember when I was at the age of 10 that I read in a scientific book that "dinosaurs appeared on earth some 50 million years ago". Already at that gullible age I immediately asked myself "how could they just appearI understood instinctively that nothing can appear like that. Evolutionists still don't have the answer.

[@annep.1905]

Maybe you are naturally less gullible than many. I hope God has great plans for you.

[@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440]

They evolved from archosaurs...

[@annep.1905]

@@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440 lol

[@1414141x]

Unfortunately you are looking at the word 'appear' in the wrong context. In this case appear is not meaning 'in an instant' as in a light being turned on. Appeared is meaning that we found evidence of dinosaurs starting to be evidential at a rough period in earth's geological history. This period would have been many millions of years. Dinosaurs gradually evolved but became dominant because they were hugely successful in multiplying and surviving.

[@annep.1905]

@@1414141x No, he's not. It doesn't matter if you give life two seconds or billions and even trillions of years. Life cannot cannot come from non-life, and the different kinds are fixed. Breeders have known the limits of several created kinds for millennia. There are scientists who are looking into baraminology, trying to determine which animals fit into which created kinds. Dinosaurs never evolved, and the layers are water-filtered sediments, not geologic years.

[@phillipdavis4507]

It has ALWAYS been simple to me, just look at life, things created. You have to be SUPER STUPID to be leave anything else other creation.

[@dekutree64]

54:14 Wow, I never knew that about cave fish. Have you tried breeding them in river conditions to see if the eyes develop any differently?

[@Truth_Matt3rs]

Longtime chemist, Dr. Philip S. Skell, said, when doing his job, evolution had nothing to do with performing his job.

[@lizd2943]

Population genetics has nothing to do with carbine research? Wow, who knew?

[@newcreationinchrist1423]

20:40 the core basic tenets of evolution

[@TheStarflight41]

Universal common descent is foundering.

[@ozowen]

Nope. It's well demonstrated. Special creation of kinds is however disproven.

[@globalcoupledances]

You can build the Phylogenetic Tree of all the genes all life forms have

[@terrencehall7264]

The creature the Bible is talking about is man. Now if you want to extend that to mean animals of all kinds, that is entirely up to you. The fact that we are made in the image of God is enough proof of God's handiwork. But we also have the the creation of the heaven and the earth and all the host of them as further proof of God's existence.

[@adelinomorte7421]

***GOD DO NOT NEED ANY PROOF OF EXISTENCE, IT IS SELF EVIDENT, JUST LOOK TO THE INNERMOST OF YOUR SOUL, EXERCISE IT WITH HUMBLENESS AND YOU WILL FIND GOD. THE REAL GOD.***

[@christophercoughlin9493]

And also the converse of what Dawkins has said is true that atheism has never shown any evidence that the world created and designed itself on a macro and micro level.

[@twosheds1749]

We dont need to!? LOL God is your claim, show some evidence for it or go away!

[@christophercoughlin9493]

@@twosheds1749 Better get used to it God's not going anywhere. All you need to do is look around you. It's science that has no proof. Life cannot create and design itself, and that is essentially what science is claiming.That phenomenon would be occurring all around us today if that were the case, wouldn't it? Conditions are certainly favorable in many places. What's more, in 70 years of attempting to recreate conditions that would have, so they say, brought about life in a lab, they have found nothing. And let's face it, they are cheating in the first place by artificially recreating the proper environment. They cannot make even one cell, which turns out to be more complex than the most sophisticated computer we have. And the fact that Jesus Christ came down and showed humanity that the entity of God is real and He is a benign God, not some evil force, emanates from what Jesus showed us and did for us.If you don't believe in God that's your choice, do so at your own risk, but don't say there is no proof. Everything you see that's alive has incredible complexity and design and it was not an accident. Nor could it have been.

[@eswn1816]

@@twosheds1749 "Go away (!??) Study philosophy and you will learn that purely materialistic science defines itself in such a way as to presume, never prove, that there is no God. Materialism does not and cannot explain the origin of the universe ("something from nothing" is NOT science...) let alone life from non-life (OOL) or, and here's the good one: consciousness.

[@twosheds1749]

@@eswn1816 Materialistic science!? You mean one based on empirical observation and measurement? LOL What do you have? eh NOTHING!!! We have 14.5 billion years of increasing complexity! We have evolution, the most tested theory in science! We have science the best tool humankind has ever devised for telling the truth from fiction! Maybe you ought to learn some before presenting your non sense! Conscious comes from the brain! LOL there is no mystery!!! LMAO

[@jounisuninen]

@@twosheds1749 What comes to proving the existence of God, it is easy while using the abductive method. When the evolution theory (which, as an atheist religion, must rest on abiogenesis) and creation are set against each other we can successfully use the abductive method called Occam’s razor. Occam’s razor is the problem-solving principle that recommends searching for explanations constructed with the smallest possible set of elements. The most simple explanation is most probably the best explanation. For example, if in the forest there is a burn-out tree, it can be the consequence of a landing flying saucer or perhaps a lightning. According to Occam’s razor, lightning is the better explanation because it requires less assumptions. Using this method, existence of the Intelligent Design is easy to prove against the abiogenesis. Abiogenesis means independent emergence of life from lifeless matter. The impossibility of abiogenesis is known to anyone who has dug in the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics i.e. the Law of Entropy. Because abiogenesis as a theory breaks the laws of physics, Occam’s razor cuts off abiogenesis as a possible reason for the birth of life - but it does not cut off the possibility of Intelligent Design. Since there are only two choices, only realistic possibility left is God. This is the kind of “reductio ad absurdium” -argumentation where a counter argument is shown poorly justified and thus implausible. Bible predicts entropy not evolution, and entropy indeed rules the universe. So why should anyone believe in evolution and not in God - especially as there is no third alternative? Atheism is missing a logical basis.

[@newcreationinchrist1423]

14:14 the purpose of Darwin's theory

[@stevenwhite8937]

It is limited… it can only work within its programming. You can’t get a man from a fish because that would require creation which only God can do, not the genome. Dogs always stay dogs precisely because the adaptation process is limited to the code it has available. Within that code there are quite a few variations possible, but it still has limits.

[@lizd2943]

The only limits on evolution are ancestral constraint and generation time.

[@stevenwhite8937]

@@lizd2943 show me one single creature in the fossil record who’s fossils show evolutionary change over time for that creatures entire existence…. You can’t. They are non-existent just like those imaginary missing common ancestors. Your entire theory exists only in your imagination….

[@adelinomorte7421]

***wether you like it or not Darwin started a biology studies that will stay forever, he started, others come after to continue HIS work.***

[@icrscience]

👍

[@terrencehall7264]

No one is continuing darwin's work. He was all we had and he has been proven to be wrong in many cases.

[@g.p.b.]

​@@terrencehall7264 Complete and utter horse wash

[@lizd2943]

@@terrencehall7264 The entire discipline of biology is continuing Darwin's work. He was wrong about a few things but he established one of the most robust scientific theories to ever exist.

[@terrencehall7264]

@@lizd2943 for example???

[@georg7120]

Do you have any evidence that Genesis is right?

[@angelalewis3645]

💡💡💡

[@offthefront7537]

It's time to do religion as if Jesus never existed.

[@throckmortensnivel2850]

Okay, what is the highly specific reason male humans have mammary glands and nipples?

[@globalcoupledances]

Same genes. But only under the influence of oestrogen they grow

[@throckmortensnivel2850]

@@globalcoupledances So I guess the question for creationists is, why was Adam given genes for mammary glands before Eve existed. I mean, why would God need to do that. The God who "spoke" the universe into existence doesn't have to follow any rules.

[@globalcoupledances]

@@throckmortensnivel2850 Romans 11:33 but in my native language it sounds better

[@throckmortensnivel2850]

@@globalcoupledances So, you don't know, is that right? That's fine with me, but given you don't know what's in the mind of God, you probably shouldn't be pretendiing it has scientific validity.

[@globalcoupledances]

@@throckmortensnivel2850 The Biblical God has no scientific validity.

[@adelinomorte7421]

*** no need to start all over again, Darwin will always be as the initiator of a serious study of biology, nobody can make a scientific study without mention Darwin, no matter what ignorants would say about it.***

[@jounisuninen]

Darwin was a 100% ignoramus in genetics and information science. Still Darwin will always be the initiator for just as ignorant Neo-Darwinists ... 🤣

[@adelinomorte7421]

@@jounisuninen ***BUT SEEMS THAT YOU ARE 100 % IGNORANT OF WHAT DARWIN STARTED AND IT STILLS BE WORKING, FOR BIOLOGY, EVEN WITH MORE ADVANCEMENTS IN GENETICS AND INFORMATION. Darwin was most likely a better christian than you "so called creationists" ***

[@lizd2943]

@@jounisuninen And genetic patterns wouldn't make sense without common descent.

[@offthefront7537]

Is the earth flat?

[@ozowen]

Biology is not best viewed from an engineering perspective. Just as valid as; Engineering is best viewed from a astrophysics perspective. Nonsense.

[@MrWeezer55]

It's time to do biology as if your brain never existed.

[@jounisuninen]

We have done Darwinist biology as if our brains never existed. The undergraduate Charles Darwin knew nothing of genes or thermodynamics and unfortunately his followers don't seem to know them any better.

[@MrWeezer55]

@@jounisuninen 'Darwinst'? A little behind the times, aren't you, bud?

[@MrWeezer55]

There's no such thing as 'Darwinism'. And yes 'his followers' (also known as scientists), have learned a great deal about genetics and thermodynamics, thus adding to the mountains of evidence for natural selection.@@jounisuninen

[@alankleinman5494]

Dr. Guliuzza, as a physician, you should have some idea of what mutation and selection does with the occurrence of drug-resistant infections. I think you and many of my Christian brothers and sister have a problem with Darwin based on a misunderstanding of what Darwin said. Darwin's understanding of biological evolution explains how drug resistance evolves. What Darwin didn't do is correctly explain universal common descent and the impossibility of it. What you need to try to do is understand what Darwin said that is correct and fits with the laws of physics and what is incorrect about Darwinian evolution.

[@anthonypolonkay2681]

The bacteria developing antibiotics resistance is not going to be a fruitful example. Precisly because it's a propper example of a darwinian process in real life. And because it exemplifies what that process actually does. When you take a look on the genomic, and genetic level of what occurs when a bacteria mutates to be resistant to a drug, it is every Time an instance of reductive processes. Some kind of spike protein gets truncated, or regulatory function gets disrupted, and now the bacteria van no longer ingest the antibiotics. While true it became "beneficial" in the niche situation of the antibiotic being present, it is soley the result of genetic destruction, and degradation. You are breaking an already established specified function in the bacteria to accomplish the adaptation. It is not a generative process. Some might say, "so what". Well the problem being for darwinian processes to be responsible for all life on earth you have to have a method of generating novel, specified, functional information in the genome. Which has never been observed. All mutations, even beneficial ones, are the result, of reduction, or destruction of some part of the genetics of an organism. The best examples that had the highest probability of being truly generative which were Richard lenskis long Lerman ecoli experiment with its Cit+ mutation. And the nylonase bacterial. Both of which were also exposed as being results in genomic reduction, and degradation after extended analysis.

[@lastchance8142]

​@@anthonypolonkay2681 Yes, thank you. This is correct, but not well understood by the public.

[@varsenika8651]

​@@anthonypolonkay2681thanks

[@lizd2943]

@@anthonypolonkay2681 Leaving aside that you guys never actually define "specified," (or what biological information even is or how to measure it) new information arises in the genome all the time. Apo A-1 Milano is the result of a substitution mutation. Or look up Acquisition of new function through gene duplication in the metallocarboxypeptidase family Daniel Fajardo, Ritchie Saint Jean & Peter J. Lyons You're just wrong.

[@anthonypolonkay2681]

@@lizd2943 I will look Into the specific example you cited, but I will also make a prediction as to what is likly happening in it. In every instance I have seen thus far when the claim "gain of function" is made in regards to any mutation(that we do in fact know is an actual mutation, there are lots of instances where something is being claimed as a mutation, but isn't) what has always been the case is that some form of regulatory, or genomic trigger is broken resulting in a process that is normally switched off, except in specific enviorments/circumstances, or only activated durring certian phases of development life. But instead of being turned off when it was supposed to, the mutation that occured destroyed, or broke in some manner the triggers/mechanisms that tell it to turn off/on based on whatever given factors. So now the function is just always active at all times, and this results In the behaviour being noticed as "new" by the researchers in question since normally before the function in question was always regulated to be off im the enviornments in question. And only after extensive research into it does it come to light that this is not a new function created by said mutation, but instead an Instance of the switch for an already existing function stuck in the on position. I can't say for certian until I read it. Which will take some time, because you never trust the abstract, or claims made in the literary body of a paper on its own. You have to examine all the experimental data with it. And going through all that thouroughly takes some time. If the paper doesn't present that then it's claims are as good as bunk. But yeah past experience from all other claims of new functions being demonstrated from mutations has always been something akin to explained above when put under any thorough screwtiny. It's probably going to be the same with this one.

[@kevlark3184]

Jesus is the Savior. God is the Creator. To call Jesus God is to call Jesus a liar...

[@adelinomorte7421]

***RELIGIOUS IGNORANCE***

[@LuciferAlmighty]

Evolution is still a fact

[@lizd2943]

Design is recognized by artificiality, not some special kind of complexity. This argument is just question begging.

[@georgejacob6378]

ICR Scientists are a sorry lot if the bible is to be considered as a scientific manual.....of all the gods, crediting the Yeweha of the bible as the intelligence behind creation is beyond absurd

[@jounisuninen]

Everything that science has found and is finding out testifies for the scientific facts revealed in Bible. Bible is not a limited scientific manual made by defective humans. Bible does not use scientific language because that is made by humans for our own scientific studies. Instead, Bible tells how God has worked and what is waiting us in the future. We can take the Law of Entropy. Bible tells us that nothing is evolving but devolving. This means no Darwinian Universal Common Ancestor was possible. The principal direction of all natural processes is decay, the process towards the universal heat death of the universe. That's what entropy means. So there are no miracles, just the way how God created our universe and how He will roll it up: Hebrews 1:10-12 10 He also says,“In the beginning, Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. 11 They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment. 12 You will roll them up like a robe; like a garment they will be changed. But you remain the same, and your years will never end.” Thermodynamics is working all the time just as God intended - “they will all wear out …”. Bible told thousands of years ago the fact which evolutionists still don’t understand - there is no evolution. Just entropy and devolution. The Law of Entropy rules the whole universe. That's why we are heading towards the universal heat death where the universal temperature will be near 0°K and there's no free energy anymore. All this goes just like the Bible says. Indeed I prefer believing in something that is NOT scientifically proven non-existent (God) than believing in something that IS proven non-existent (abiogenesis / evolution).

[@lizd2943]

@@jounisuninen If your mangled understanding of entropy were correct, nothing could grow. The Earth gets energy from the Sun.

[@jounisuninen]

"With Darwin's discovery of natural selection, the origin and adaptations of organisms were brought into the realm of science." What a joke ... 😄

[@adelinomorte7421]

***so! if is what you think just LAUGH LAUD, "the dogs bark but the caravan goes it's way through" and you stay where you are inside your fortress drunk with the "alcohol" of reading without understand it.***

[@adelinomorte7421]

***SO LAUGH LAUD; I WILL CRY FOR YOU***

[@adelinomorte7421]

***it is not a joke it a serious business.***

[@stephenking4170]

In the USA they have Gaard. In Russia He is called Bog. In English He is called God.

[@valerieprice1745]

It's nature worship. They're not atheists. They're pagans.

[@ozowen]

Rubbish

[@valerieprice1745]

@@ozowen that's not an argument. Prove they're not pagan Neo-gnostics. The Olympics opening shoots down your position, considering they're advertising their pagan pantheon. I guess you missed it.

[@ozowen]

@@valerieprice1745 Atheists don't believe in any deities. In this post Christian age many might turn to neo pagan beliefs but that group does not include atheists. Citing the Olympics opening is plain silly.

[@lizd2943]

@@valerieprice1745 That's not how the burden of proof works. You made this silly claim, you need to prove it. You do at least get props for not repeating the lie about that tableau being The Last Supper, but no, that does not prove anything about evolution.

[@valerieprice1745]

@@lizd2943 read Darwin's letters, and his books. You will be shocked, disturbed, and probably you won't have the stomach to get very far. Darwin wasn't a well man. He had physical and mental illness.

[@1414141x]

The big problem is that any religion gets in the way of rational thought. We now live in an age where religion no longer educates us about our environment, our beginnings, ourselves. However this has happened only recently - perhaps over the last 250 years or so once we started to seriously explore ourselves, our planet and our universe. We started to observe things, measure things, dissect things. We also started to use mathematics to support this and give predictions and explanations. Unfortunately what we are finding is challenging what religion espoused, and what we were TOLD to accept. Now religion is on the back foot and no longer has much credence with those who have not been brain-washed by it. Religion will continue to scream and fight back, as it loses the fight of rationality versus religion. It will take time, but religion will eventually begin to be something our forebears look back it in our history and wonder why we believed it. Now science gives us choices and the opportunity to challenge.

[@jounisuninen]

"The big problem is that any religion gets in the way of rational thought." Nonsense ... Isaac Newton found God in Nature and saw science as a bridge between the human and the divine mind. For Newton to adore Nature, to study it scientifically, was a devotional act. Newton on the Solar System: "Though these bodies may indeed continue in their orbits by the mere laws of gravity, yet they could by no means have at first derived the regular position of the orbits themselves from those laws. Thus, this most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the council and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being." - General Scholium to the Principia The most important founders of modern science believed in God: Nicolaus Copernicus (a monk), Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei, Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday, Joseph Priestley, James Clerk Maxwell, Gregor Mendel (the founder of genetics and abbot of a monastery), Lord Kelvin and Albert Einstein. Plus, many of the pioneers of quantum physics: Werner Heisenberg, Max Plank, Erwin Schrödinger, James Jeans, Louis de Broglie, Wolfgang Pauli and Arthur Eddington. And today's scientists - the astrophysicist Paul Davies, Simon Conway Morris (Professor of Evolutionary Paleobiology at Cambridge), Alasdair Coles (Professor of Neuro-immunology at Cambridge), John Polkinghorne (who was Professor of Mathematical Physics at Cambridge), Russell Stannard, Freeman Dyson … and Francis Collins, who led the team of 2,400 international scientists on the Human Genome Project and was an atheist until the age of 27, when he became a Christian. Natural sciences started to decline only when Charles Darwin presented his evolution theory in 1859, without understanding anything of genetics or thermodynamics. Over 60% of all Nobel Laureates in Science believe in God (statistics 1900-2000). It seems that the more ignorant a person is, the more he is inclined towards atheism.

[@1414141x]

@@jounisuninen Many forward thinking academics and scientists had to accept belief in some religion because to challenge religion was dangerous. It is only relatively recently that science has been free from this danger.

[@adelinomorte7421]

*** I do not see any problem in being religious and scientist; it is just a matter of "give to Cesar what belongs to Cesar and to God what belongs to God" ; all religions have their mythology and a language that uses the common language with different meanings, as any common language has no possibility to express transcendent and spiritual ideas in order to communicate those ideas. Theology is a science that helps, but not all religious leaders study it profoundly. ***

[@adelinomorte7421]

1414141x *** you are right, but mind you I am christian and have no problem with science, as do not find any controversy between the bible and science as also have no controversy by love with my heart as it is just a blood pump, I learn to understand different styles of writing, the bible like many other religions use the style MYTHOLOGIC on their sacred books.***

[@JimWilliams-s8z]

What intellectually honest engineer w0uld claim they can explain how all cars,came to be while admitting they have no clue how the engines in any of them coalesced??? This is the delutional absurdity of evolutionary theory.

[@lizd2943]

No, that is a nonsense analogy.

[@JimWilliams-s8z]

@lizd2943 it hit a nerve with you obviously..

[@lizd2943]

@@JimWilliams-s8z Why would you think that? I just noticed you made a bad analogy. I can know that cars are made at a particular factory without knowing any details of how engines are made, and we know quite a lot about evolution.

[@JimWilliams-s8z]

@lizd2943 you missed the analogy boat completely Also I hate to be bearer of bad news but no one knows how to build a living cell much less how they coalesced in the first place.

[@lizd2943]

@@JimWilliams-s8z The origin of life is abiogenesis, not evolution. If you want to try and criticize evolution, at least learn what it is first.

[@stevendelucas6311]

Yes, let's disregard Darwin, and everything our intelligence has allowed us to discover.

[@brianmaney1973]

More like disregarding a 1 billion old universe, blood-letting, or humors of the body😂😂😂😂

[@HS-zk5nn]

he had issues

[@chrisanderson5317]

Name one discovery Darwinism has allowed us to discover that design could not have accomplished.

[@jounisuninen]

Yes, let's disregard Darwin, and we can make free science without artificial atheistic limits and prejudices. In human thinking God shouldn't be positioned as contradicting science. That would be a mistake. "Methodological Naturalism" is favored by atheists but it's not the only method of scientific studies. In fact Methodological Naturalism is strictly taken not scientific at all, when we stick to the principle that science must not reject any alternative theories for ideological reasons. Creationist science uses Critical Rationalism as the preferred method of scientific studies, because in that method no theory is rejected for ideological reasons.